About nodoz99

An individual so traumatized by his parents' late-in-life conversion from "life in the fast lane" to born again Christianity that he has been driven to study religion for the rest of his life. His main interest is in religion "outside the box" ... religiosity as it happens in small groups, subcultures, and organizations.

This last episode of “To the Best of Our Knowledge” featured what sounds like a great book on secularism. The main point for everyone from atheists to Christian fundamentalists is that secularism is in place to protect religious freedom, not to stifle it. It does this by protecting against state-level establishment of a particular religion. Interestingly, the author, Berlinerbau, also points out that an absolute separation of religion and state is also not desirable. He points to the Soviet Union as an example of the type of state it would take to attempt such absolutism. Because, at least in the interview (I haven’t read the book), he provides a balanced approach, his work seems worth checking out for those interested in matters of “church and state.”

Although, sometimes, especially as a non-religious person, I wonder why I am studying at the Graduate Theological Union (GTU), every now and then it becomes clear. Yesterday was a perfect example of why I chose to pursue my doctorate there.

So together in one hall, on this Protestant campus, we have Jews holding services and celebrating the High Holidays, and partaking in the local activist culture of Berkeley. It’s fascinating to see the coming together and vibrancy of such cultural flows.

The short presentations given by the panelists along with the question and answer moderated by Tolan was informative, inspiring, and even challenging. The discussion’s major topics centered on respect for multiple religions, free speech, hate speech, ethics and the internet, and the call for a civil rights-style coming together of multiple religions to advocate for respect across and between all religions.

It was an impressive meeting attended by a few hundred people with around 4,000 people watching online. Very impressive considering it was organized less than a week earlier.

Yesterday’s events–the interaction, overlap, and neighborly-ness of Christianity, Islam, and Judaism– showcased GTU’s approach to religion as exemplary. This all happened with GTU’s 50th anniversary (albeit some member colleges are much older) as a backdrop. In the last 50 years, GTU’s graduate program has grown into one of the largest religious studies programs (including theology, biblical studies, ethics, arts, social sciences, and more) in the U.S. Yesterday’s events showcased the importance and vibrancy of the GTU.

If printing a gun is the equivalent to the liberation of the printing press, as Cody Wilson claims (see video), then critically thinking about information has hit hard times. Meaning: ideology and violence have become the only methods of “real” communication.

While, I understand that access to information can be empowering, I believe the philosophy behind the Defense Distributed project is oversimplified, naive, and partially paranoid. It does not take into account that we live in a world made complex by a growing population, poverty, restricted resources, and various governmental and economic systems. While I may agree that not all politicians have “the greater good” or the individual rights in mind, these concepts alone deserve greater contemplation than Hobbesian (i.e., “life is nasty, brutish, and short”), Marxian-utopian (i.e., elitist politicians are corrupt and want to only maintain the status quo), libertarian (i.e., we exist only as an aggregate of individuals and as such deserve unfettered access to anything we want, when we want it) cracker-jack platitudes.

We live in a world where eating unhealthy junk food is an expression of one’s Christian beliefs. Putting aside that one’s body is one’s temple, I think this sort of expression demonstrates the poverty of popular theology in the U.S. For those who believe that there was something more substantial to the overall message attributed to Jesus as depicted in biblical stories, such as service to those who are less fortunate (e.g., widows, prisoners, and others who live in the lower ranks of society), such demonstrations of piety are simultaneously laughable and pathetic. It is really no wonder that there is an increasing number of religious “nones” (or non-affiliated) in national surveys on religion.

(And don’t even get me started on the reason for this celebration of deep-fried, pink slime … people currently exalting Chic Fil-A are those who revel in throwing the first stone.)

If the Hippocratic Oath can be taken as the highest ideal of the medical field—separate from the economic structures that have built up around it—then something like health care should be judged by its purist ideals, i.e., the Hippocratic Oath. In that sense health care is more than a mere product. Those who reduce it to a mere product in the health care debate take this oath of healing and comforting out of context. However, if those who do wish to reduce health care to a mere product that is bought and sold in an economic market, why don’t they do the same with religion? Institutional religions are, by necessity, run in similar ways to businesses and their product is that of salvation. This is not so dissimilar from the way medical care needs to be run in a business-like fashion. Yet, I have yet to hear that we should treat religious goods as products or that we treat the actual organizations of religion as businesses. Perhaps, we should separate the highest ideals of religion from its organizational necessity, the same way we do health care. If that is the case, then religious organizations could be taxed as businesses selling products—products that promise healing and salvation. This new tax on these religious organizations that deliver the product of salvation, could, perhaps, go to help fund health care or reduce taxes for the middle class. Any thoughts?

After reading and re-reading Bellah, et al.’s Habits of the Heart, it’s difficult to not see their take on individualism in American culture. One of the main points is that individualism is one of the primary languages in American culture. Two subtypes of individualism are the manager and the therapist. Both are essentially utilitarian or maximizers of preferences with the manager concerned more with the external and the therapist with the internal.

Bellah, et al. do leave the possibility open for new subtypes of individualism to emerge or build off of secondary languages in America such as biblical or republican.

After years of working in the financial world and reading Greg Smith’s piece in the NY Times about the culture of Goldman Sachs, I think that a new individualist subtype has become prevalent: the salesman. Whereas Bellah, et al. focus more on these as languages, I think the salesman is often more of a style. It may not even have its own language, but it is an approach to life. It is one that instrumentalizes all relationships in order to maximize preferences that are monetary.

Although, Smith’s piece describes those salesman that take use the language of manager, there are also those who use the language of the therapist. I encountered the latter in working with many people from the real estate and mortgage industries. There are various educational programs for people in these industries that involve “lead generation” or the ability to bring new people in, take advantage of social networks, etc. in order to increase sales. Interestingly, however, such tactics are often wrapped in the language of self-realization, self-help, and meaningful relationships.

But such a style is not limited to the financial world. It pervades much of our culture, we are constantly encouraged to “sell ourselves” or “market ourselves” in the new economy. Such advice seems like “common sense.” Yet, it’s also often mixed with notions about “being oneself.” One only need to watch an episode of “What Not to Wear” to see how so many people “become themselves” by wearing a more marketable uniform of “who they really are.”

Finally, the gender-specific “man” in salesman, I think is appropriate as well. Much of this type of style, especially, as expressed by Smith about Goldman Sachs fits all to well into a stereotype of patriarchal culture run amok. Although this could be nuanced, you get the point.

As it stands, this is all just thinking “out loud” or “on line,” but I believe there is something to this American style of individualism. After all, marketing and sales are part of the water we constantly swim in–how could it not shape who we are?